/tg/Station 13

Back in ye olde days of 2008, the admins used to enforce the fact that non-antags shouldn't murder without VERY good cause very seriously. You used to eat a day-ban if you ended up killing a non-antag, and it didn't matter if it was a mistake or not.

granted taking them to cloning would mitigate this somewhat but the overall result was that people actually acted like normal people and REALLY didn't want to kill someone unless they absolutely had to or were sure they were an antagonist.

Overall this resulted in much more careful play by the players, and less TDM feeling, as killing someone had OOC consequences, because there usually is very little IC consequences unless someone in security is actually role-playing.

You still had shit-lords starting stuff but they would tend to be banned rather quick as they were much easier to spot, as everyone and their mother didn't kill each other over "escalation."

I think that the server should go back to those days, or at least somewhere close to those days.

Killing someone should be considered a serious deal, sure people die in this game but that is supposed to be the antagonist's job, not Greyshirt McTider's or Slippy McSlipnCuff.

Killing someone who is not an antag and taking them to cloning should net you a warning at the least, killing a non-antag and not taking them to cloning should net you a short ban, maybe a few rounds.

And killing a non-antag and permanently removing them from the round (Like via cremation or brain destruction for example) should be a day ban at the very least.

Escalation rules honestly have made this server even more validhunty than it was way back in the day, and it was pretty validhunty. I think it is time that there is a serious look at them.

I mean if there were OOC consequences to killing, people might actually ROLEPLAY a bit for Christ's sake.

but we still do all of this

like is this a joke thread or

bandit wrote:but we still do all of this

Escalation rules seem to make a non-antag "Valid" more times than it should, also considering that there appears to be no way to DE-escalate means that all conflict must end in murder or one side is going to get killed and not be able to adminhelp it because "Escalation"

I am basically saying dont take escalation rules into account when it comes to killing, and dont give certain roles carte blanche to kill if they think they can, I.e. Captain, HoS, and security in general.

Also, Ive heard complaints about both the lack of ability to de-escalate and the use of warnings when banning should be the go-to.

In a recent round a player let a clown go twice during a conflict and took them to medbay only for the clown to kill him and space his corpse. He was so discouraged with how admins currently handle non-antag conflict he didnt see the POINT of adminhelping.

And in a personal experience note, Ive been lasered in the middle of the hall after saving the station from a delamming supermatter as CE by the captain and then had my corpse cremated for deconning the comm consoles to prevent a shuttle recall. They got away with a warning, despite the reasons for straight up murdering a subordinate being flawed.

If bans were applied a bit more liberally then perhaps the clown and captain might take pause before pulling out the fire extinguisher or laser.

And if you truely still do this, then there is a SERIOUS perception problem. Players dont see the use in adminhelping anymore as more often than not they feel that nothing will be done or what will be done will be a slap on the wrist.

In a recent round a player let a clown go twice during a conflict and took them to medbay only for the clown to kill him and space his corpse. He was so discouraged with how admins currently handle non-antag conflict he didnt see the POINT of adminhelping.

No adminhelp = nothing is going to be done by definition. Admins don't see everything.

And in a personal experience note, Ive been lasered in the middle of the hall after saving the station from a delamming supermatter as CE by the captain and then had my corpse cremated for deconning the comm consoles to prevent a shuttle recall. They got away with a warning, despite the reasons for straight up murdering a subordinate being flawed.

I don't know what ban this is or the context so I can't really speak to this, but a lot of times warnings will be given if it's someone's first offense, or even if they're just not a turbo-hitler about the investigation.

And if you truely still do this, then there is a SERIOUS perception problem. Players dont see the use in adminhelping anymore as more often than not they feel that nothing will be done or what will be done will be a slap on the wrist.

I mean bans aren't public but there are plenty of daybans and weekbans and shit on there

We are way stricter about non antags killing eachother now than at almost any point in the history of the server.

The exception for this is security killing people, and we are the laxest on that that we have ever been.

Kor wrote:We are way stricter about non antags killing eachother now than at almost any point in the history of the server.

The exception for this is security killing people, and we are the laxest on that that we have ever been.

so it is a perception thing then, I remember hearing from an admin that people adminhelp significantly less than they used to, I assumed it was due to lax enforcement, and if that is not the case I am wondering what the cause is.

Would making bans public be a bad thing? It would provide a record of what is and isnt acceptable behavior.

scrub the names if there is privacy or drama issues, but more transparency about what gets you banned would be a welcome bit of info from a player perspective.

If the intention behind public bans is to let the player know what is OK or not, admins would need to include a lot more contextual information and history of the players involved.

That's not to say even some info might be useful but there is the risk of misinformation without extended context

While I understand its an attractive option to say "Well fuck this wasn't a problem back then as far as I remember". The reality is that the game has been growing and evolving with the rules as they are in mind. Simply saying lets just do it how we did it before is pulling a major jenga block in a tower built out of jenga blocks you had to pull from it. Things like this have massive shockwaves of effect because of the way people designed gamemodes and features around things being the way that they are, whether it was in 2010, 2012, 2014, or later. The thing with those though is that we can evolve policy around the changes and new features and adapt old features in slight ways as new policy and other features arrives, = game balance. By throwing such a big swap in the mix all the changes made with security as it is or was between then and now in mind are moot, as well as any policy changes that were made regarding security because of said features.

Because security policy was developed slowly over time its deeply ingrained in other aspects of the server and pulling it out risks imbalancing a host of other features, balance PRs, policies, and game modes. This would have to be a massive project where people would take a look at these things as they are and try to fit them with security play and policy from 2008. As well as the fact that what you're looking for is a medium RP server with no rule 4. If any killing whatsoever was absolutely bannable in all circumstances, then the first person to put an axe in someones head is seen as an antag if he's not banned. As well as making people afraid to fight back because if they win they get banned unless they can convince the admin of rules they don't know very well because they're brand new to most, and probably not remembered well by others

Tl;dr Making a change based on such a large time period regarding something as important this avalanches everything and pulls out lode bearing balances

Dr_bee wrote:Back in ye olde days of 2008, the admins used to enforce the fact that non-antags shouldn't murder without VERY good cause very seriously. You used to eat a day-ban if you ended up killing a non-antag, and it didn't matter if it was a mistake or not.

granted taking them to cloning would mitigate this somewhat but the overall result was that people actually acted like normal people and REALLY didn't want to kill someone unless they absolutely had to or were sure they were an antagonist.

Overall this resulted in much more careful play by the players, and less TDM feeling, as killing someone had OOC consequences, because there usually is very little IC consequences unless someone in security is actually role-playing.

You still had shit-lords starting stuff but they would tend to be banned rather quick as they were much easier to spot, as everyone and their mother didn't kill each other over "escalation."

I think that the server should go back to those days, or at least somewhere close to those days.

Killing someone should be considered a serious deal, sure people die in this game but that is supposed to be the antagonist's job, not Greyshirt McTider's or Slippy McSlipnCuff.

Killing someone who is not an antag and taking them to cloning should net you a warning at the least, killing a non-antag and not taking them to cloning should net you a short ban, maybe a few rounds.

And killing a non-antag and permanently removing them from the round (Like via cremation or brain destruction for example) should be a day ban at the very least.

Escalation rules honestly have made this server even more validhunty than it was way back in the day, and it was pretty validhunty. I think it is time that there is a serious look at them.

I mean if there were OOC consequences to killing, people might actually ROLEPLAY a bit for Christ's sake.

I think some ideas could be nice, People definitely need to stop killing and attacking eachother for keks. And everyone being the way they currently are likely makes spotting the problem players difficult and contributes to "Admins don't see everything". As it stands, escalation is a joke. And the servers fairly lawless. I honestly don't know what else to say. I'm honestly tired of this shit. Nothing ever gets done, my dude. Not unless you tell them what you expect and how they can do it, then maybe. Just maybe. They'll look at it.

Still, Everything being a straight up punishable offense would likely cause problems. People would have a difficult time adapting to it.
And, i mean. Can You write better escalation rules. People have tried, but nothing ever came out of it. As it stands it's just terrible and a way for people to kill crew-members who mildly inconvenienced them.
You seem reasonable, least you're thinking of something. Which is better then the current "Nothing." everyone has.

bandit wrote:No adminhelp = nothing is going to be done by definition. Admins don't see everything.

He's telling you that some players from the playerbase don't even see the point in A-helping because they have little faith in the Administration regarding properly investigating and handling the situation. One could assume it may be because any A-helps they have sent have been unactionable. But it is likely that they were ignored as-well. Causing them to no longer see it as viable option.

A side issue I've noticed is people apparently abusing Adminhelp. Or otherwise lots of things going on. Which can swamp the Admin(s) with A-Helps. Causing various potential issues and may contribute to them skimping a few important details. Or something of the sort. They can't reasonably investigate everything properly when being swamped. And there's not often more then one or two Admin present when i'd been playing. Often times, none.

bandit wrote:I don't know what ban this is or the context so I can't really speak to this, but a lot of times warnings will be given if it's someone's first offense, or even if they're just not a turbo-hitler about the investigation.

He's got a point here. Warnings should be used more often to steer players in the right direction. Why ban a player that could potentially learn? even if it might seem a little warranted. Context and proper analysis is important. However, there are a lot of trouble players running amok. Nowadays. Which in my opinion indicates that the system is currently faulty. It can be abused. Much like Security, the Admin team ideally should be able to deduce true malicious intent from a genuine accident and act accordingly.

bandit wrote:I mean bans aren't public but there are plenty of daybans and weekbans and shit on there

So then why not make it public. Squelch the names if necessary. Might restore peoples faith that you guys are doing your job and that A-helping can work more then once in a blue moon, If they can atleast see it. What've you got to lose? Atlanta-Ned can probably help with that.

Dr_bee wrote:so it is a perception thing then, I remember hearing from an admin that people adminhelp significantly less than they used to, I assumed it was due to lax enforcement, and if that is not the case I am wondering what the cause is.

Probably related to Admins "IC Issue"ing most things, not even responding to the A-helps, rarely being online and rarely responding from IRC. Coupled with them apparently "Laughing" about people A-helping blatant cases instead of handling it. More activity and less "laughing" might help out. But i mean, that's an issue that's supposedly being addressed.

imblyings wrote:If the intention behind public bans is to let the player know what is OK or not, admins would need to include a lot more contextual information and history of the players involved.
That's not to say even some info might be useful but there is the risk of misinformation without extended context

In my opinion, this is already an issue. It'd only encourage due diligence and proper investigation on the Admins part. As-well as providing more contextual information. Yeah, sure. It'd be more work. Maybe clog up the process a little. But i feel it may lead to less questionable bans. With the side effect of being something players can look at to find out what is not acceptable behavior and has resulted in punishments beforehand. Hopefully preventing some from doing it unknowingly.

If you get killed by me then you deserved it and I will be annoyed if an admin bwoinks me for it even to ask why

Also you're forgetting that most people's non lethal way of settling fights died when stungloves were removed which is probably why you feel like you do

" You used to eat a day-ban if you ended up killing a non-antag, and it didn't matter if it was a mistake or not. "

There are aspects of the game that encourage you to experiment. Some of these have lethal results if you experiment incorrectly [SM for one]. Banning people for that just seems wrong.

If people were given the information I have as an admin, then I'd agree people should eat bans regardless of it was a "mistake" or not. However, players ingame don't get this luxury, and I think just ignoring that part of the equation is a foolish thing for admins to do assuming what you said is true.

I also personally think banning players for mistakes encourage them to powergame so they don't make the same mistake and consequently get banned for it again.

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:" You used to eat a day-ban if you ended up killing a non-antag, and it didn't matter if it was a mistake or not. "

There are aspects of the game that encourage you to experiment. Some of these have lethal results if you experiment incorrectly [SM for one]. Banning people for that just seems wrong.

If people were given the information I have as an admin, then I'd agree people should eat bans regardless of it was a "mistake" or not. However, players ingame don't get this luxury, and I think just ignoring that part of the equation is a foolish thing for admins to do assuming what you said is true.

I also personally think banning players for mistakes encourage them to powergame so they don't make the same mistake and consequently get banned for it again.

This, I've made some fuck ups that ruined the whole round but they taught me some really valuable stuff, and have accidentally killed people and had fantastic rounds devoted to making it up to them/getting them cloned. If you make mistakes and get banned for them it either does what Cobby said, or it makes you never want to go outside the norm, which both makes the game stagnate for the player and they eventually quit and causes players to not go for those really good rounds where one lucky thing or mistake made makes it legendary.

Nilons wrote:

ExcessiveCobblestone wrote:" You used to eat a day-ban if you ended up killing a non-antag, and it didn't matter if it was a mistake or not. "

There are aspects of the game that encourage you to experiment. Some of these have lethal results if you experiment incorrectly [SM for one]. Banning people for that just seems wrong.

If people were given the information I have as an admin, then I'd agree people should eat bans regardless of it was a "mistake" or not. However, players ingame don't get this luxury, and I think just ignoring that part of the equation is a foolish thing for admins to do assuming what you said is true.

I also personally think banning players for mistakes encourage them to powergame so they don't make the same mistake and consequently get banned for it again.

This, I've made some fuck ups that ruined the whole round but they taught me some really valuable stuff, and have accidentally killed people and had fantastic rounds devoted to making it up to them/getting them cloned. If you make mistakes and get banned for them it either does what Cobby said, or it makes you never want to go outside the norm, which both makes the game stagnate for the player and they eventually quit and causes players to not go for those really good rounds where one lucky thing or mistake made makes it legendary.

When I said "mistake" I was talking about murdering someone you assumed was valid but it turns out they were not valid. accidental death such as from supermatter explosions, improper chemical reactions, or toxin's fuckups were not what I was talking about. But thats for pointing those out so I could clear it up.

I am specifically talking about murder here, not accidental death. There is an intent to kill when it comes to murdering a non-valid by mistake, where accidental deaths via workplace mishap dont have the same level of intent.

By choosing murder you have picked a decision over all other forms of roleplay, and it should be treated very harshly by admins if the player did not do their due diligence in making sure there was an actually good IC reason to kill them, such as a capital crime or confirmation of traitorous activity (not just possession of contraband)

Lazengann wrote:Also you're forgetting that most people's non lethal way of settling fights died when stungloves were removed which is probably why you feel like you do

You can make makeshift stun prods

Nobody does

Not anymore.

oranges wrote:

Lazengann wrote:Also you're forgetting that most people's non lethal way of settling fights died when stungloves were removed which is probably why you feel like you do

You can make makeshift stun prods

We made them too unwieldy to fit on your back to "reduce greytiding"

The stunprod has seen better days.

for anyone who would like to know why the scenario outlined in the OP does not happen more please visit Ban Appeals

Kor wrote:We are way stricter about non antags killing eachother now than at almost any point in the history of the server.

The exception for this is security killing people, and we are the laxest on that that we have ever been.

I would disagree. I've had PLENTY of interactions with admins over the years and I can say with certainty that we used to be a lot harsher toward people who would escalate to murder.

Currently if anyone even slights you far too many admins will totally be on board with the slighted individual going straight to murder.

If someone punched me a few times in the hall and then I beat them to death, I would expect a ban circa 2012 from a good number of the admins back then.

Now there's a good chance the person beat to death could catch a ban-baiting ban for getting beat to death after punching someone around. Same story goes for simple trespassing/door hacking/minor theft/etc.

There's no coherent escalation policy so we seem to be settling on a simple interpretation, "Do something you're not entitled to that will inconvenience someone else" = You've chosen to make yourself valid. Don't like it? Don't annoy people. This is powered by the collective delusion that if we let people murder each other over minor escalations then soon nobody will bother each other at all and we will achieve total workplace harmony - rather than just normalizing the attitude that murder is the only acceptable way to resolve conflicts.

bandit wrote:for anyone who would like to know why the scenario outlined in the OP does not happen more please visit Ban Appeals

Please do, if only to understand why nobody bothers with restraint anymore. BGO will ban you simply for critting someone and judge it as though you had murdered them. So why bother with restraint if flat out murder as opposed to critting (and they succumb with 90hp left mere seconds from the medbay) is judged equally. If critting and then immediately rendering aid is bannable then why not just murder them and:

1) If it was valid then you don't have to worry about them coming back for revenge.

2) If it was invalid then you're getting banned whether you crit or kill so you might as well ensure your victim suffers too.

Basically anytime you want to understand where our policy is going wrong, just see how BGO handles ahelps.

Or, you know, you could have just not critted them. The burning need to crit and/or kill people for doing nothing, instead of talking to them, or just live and let live, is exactly what the OP is talking about.

When did crit become equivalent to a stun

Dumb coders give us back our normal sized stunprods

We only give those to people who wear undershirts

ive had enough of your citric acidness to what is an important change to the code that could affect how people interact with each other

Oldman Robustin wrote: BGO will ban you simply for critting someone and judge it as though you had murdered them. So why bother with restraint if flat out murder as opposed to critting (and they succumb with 90hp left mere seconds from the medbay) is judged equally.

It was always my understanding that succumbing was treated as consenting to the death as you took away any chance for your attacker to render aid. So if you succumbed you couldnt ahelp it because you didnt even give them a chance to try to heal you.

I DID AS YOU ASKED AVERY, IT'S UP TO YOU NOW

Dr_bee wrote:

Oldman Robustin wrote: BGO will ban you simply for critting someone and judge it as though you had murdered them. So why bother with restraint if flat out murder as opposed to critting (and they succumb with 90hp left mere seconds from the medbay) is judged equally.

It was always my understanding that succumbing was treated as consenting to the death as you took away any chance for your attacker to render aid. So if you succumbed you couldnt ahelp it because you didnt even give them a chance to try to heal you.

Thats 100% correct. The only exception might be if the victim was under the reasonable impression that there was no hope of survival so they ghosted to avoid dragging out the inevitable/leave a salty deathgasp - or if emergency circumstances would make the crit itself invalid.

Treating crit like murder is part of the same overall trend that got us to what this thread is about. Throwing a punch is now treated like 4 thwacks from an extinguisher was a few years ago, breaking into to a department is treated like breaking into a secure area was a few years ago, etc. It is all boiling down to "Q: Did you instigate any kind of conflict" "A: Then you're 100% valid". This feels like its an inevitable outcome when headmins haven't touched escalation policy for years and we have ban appeals but no ban requests. To enforce our older escalation policy would require admins to step up and defend minor shittery by punishing people who murder minor-shitters. So the current trend is incredibly easy for admins to administer.

Jesus Christ robustin the point was that you didn't get in trouble for taking him out of the round, you didn't get a fat day ban because you didn't kill him and were trying to heal him. If you had healed him up all nice and shiny and he had ahelped it it would have been exactly the same. Him succumbing was just him saying "yeah fuck this dude I don't feel like dealing with this". Bgo didn't punish you for killing him he punished you for crittin him which is what happened.

Oldman Robustin wrote:Treating crit like murder is part of the same overall trend that got us to what this thread is about.

putting someone into crit is removing any agency they have beyond ghosting

how is this such a big issue to you?

It's not even anything to do with the crit or not

it's simply for the fact he did it for zero fuckin reason other than he saw the clown running away from the roboticist.

if the clown had been actually tussling with him, or played a prank on him, nothing probably would have happened

oranges wrote:It's not even anything to do with the crit or not

it's simply for the fact he did it for zero fuckin reason other than he saw the clown running away from the roboticist.

if the clown had been actually tussling with him, or played a prank on him, nothing probably would have happened

also this

Dr_bee wrote:

Oldman Robustin wrote: BGO will ban you simply for critting someone and judge it as though you had murdered them. So why bother with restraint if flat out murder as opposed to critting (and they succumb with 90hp left mere seconds from the medbay) is judged equally.

It was always my understanding that succumbing was treated as consenting to the death as you took away any chance for your attacker to render aid. So if you succumbed you couldnt ahelp it because you didnt even give them a chance to try to heal you.

I really hope this isn't a real policy because I can think of a lot of situations were I would succumb, especially when I'm confident that the guy attacking me was an antag, only to find out he wasn't from other players/admins in deadchat. It would be really shitty to have my ahelp rejected because "lol you succumbed".

Interesting enough, I've seen much more cases of players banned after the other guy succumbed who go "B-But I was going to heal him! He consented to death by succumbing!" than people actually healing the guy they were fighting. In fact, what happens is that whoever loses the fight is usually spaced/gibbed/removed in some way, because everyone knows that cloning them only means they will come for round 2.

How about not succumbing?

Grazyn wrote:In fact, what happens is that whoever loses the fight is usually spaced/gibbed/removed in some way, because everyone knows that cloning them only means they will come for round 2.

This is incorrect.

Hey Robustin you should code this

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10319

The succumbing "rule" (which is not a rule, just a meme a couple people have taken out of context) is stupid. It does not change the original actions one bit, and it's sadistic to make players wait around, in a state where they can literally do nothing if they don't ghost, to die from griff that has already happened. It's also completely unintuitive to new players, who generally learn fairly early on that they can succumb or ghost when in crit (given that new players tend to spend a lot of time there). It punishes people for not knowing an unspoken "rule" (that is not, in fact, a rule) and rewards grief.

Example: Suppose someone bombs you for absolutely no reason, both of you being non-antag. Somehow the bomb doesn't kill you, just crits. Succumbing does not change the fact that you just got bombed. Succumbing would not make the bomber suddenly immune from consequences.

This is not the same as banbaiting. Banbaiting requires an instigator, and it doesn't matter whether someone succumbs or not. If you didn't instigate, or at least escalate the situation, you're probably not banbaiting.

I'm pretty sure admins did tell me my ahelp was invalid because I succumbed on at least one occasion though.

bandit wrote:and it's sadistic to make players wait around

It isn't sadistic to make people wait less than one real life minute to see if someone is healing them or to tell them to not die in the middle of being healed. If they care enough about being alive that they want someone ejected from the server for 1440 minutes they can spend 1 waiting for a bruise pack to be applied to them.

Kor wrote: It isn't sadistic to make people wait less than one real life minute to see if someone is healing them or to tell them to not die in the middle of being healed. If they care enough about being alive that they want someone ejected from the server for 1440 minutes they can spend 1 waiting for a bruise pack to be applied to them.

Edit: Because I remembered I hate quote memes. BGO's post is why they are by-and-far the admin that terrifies me the most right now. They'll rule a Warden killing you for being lit on fire, as you're on the ground trying to roll the fire out, as valid... and then ban you for doing 80 damage to a clown that you're dragging to the medbay. Then lecture you about "knowing better".

BGO's bomb example is riddled with fallacies and terrible logic and I doubt anyone wants to read the paragraphs explaining why so I'll leave it there.

bandit wrote:The succumbing "rule" (which is not a rule, just a meme a couple people have taken out of context) is stupid. It does not change the original actions one bit, and it's sadistic to make players wait around, in a state where they can literally do nothing if they don't ghost, to die from griff that has already happened. It's also completely unintuitive to new players, who generally learn fairly early on that they can succumb or ghost when in crit (given that new players tend to spend a lot of time there). It punishes people for not knowing an unspoken "rule" (that is not, in fact, a rule) and rewards grief.

Example: Suppose someone bombs you, both of you being non-antag. Somehow the bomb doesn't kill you, just crits. Succumbing does not change the fact that you just got bombed. Succumbing would not make the bomber suddenly immune from consequences.

This is not the same as banbaiting. Banbaiting requires an instigator, and it doesn't matter whether someone succumbs or not. If you didn't instigate, or at least escalate the situation, you're probably not banbaiting.

I think succumbing when you're going to die is different than succumbing when someone is bringing to you the medbay. You are allowed to succumb if you're going to the medbay in crit. But i think the banbaiting thing comes into succumbing when you're going to medbay and then saying "Someone killed me!"

Kor wrote:It isn't sadistic to make people wait less than one real life minute to see if someone is healing them or to tell them to not die in the middle of being healed. If they care enough about being alive that they want someone ejected from the server for 1440 minutes they can spend 1 waiting for a bruise pack to be applied to them.

We shouldn't be encouraging RDM-style play just because there is the offchance that the victim might get healed (and an equal offchance that they'll just be harassed or attacked again once they get healed.) It's not about "caring enough about being alive" -- if I just got griffed then frankly I probably don't want to be alive in that particular round anymore, given how the people in it are behaving. It's about caring about being able to play a game with a basic understanding that people won't just griff for no reason. Taking someone to medbay is nice and all, but what would be infinitely better is not provoking situations where you have to take someone to medbay, unless there's -- imagine this -- a reason for it.

The OP put it pretty well:

You still had shit-lords starting stuff but they would tend to be banned rather quick as they were much easier to spot, as everyone and their mother didn't kill each other over "escalation."

I think that the server should go back to those days, or at least somewhere close to those days.

Killing someone should be considered a serious deal, sure people die in this game but that is supposed to be the antagonist's job, not Greyshirt McTider's or Slippy McSlipnCuff.

Oldman Robustin wrote:

Kor wrote: It isn't sadistic to make people wait less than one real life minute to see if someone is healing them or to tell them to not die in the middle of being healed. If they care enough about being alive that they want someone ejected from the server for 1440 minutes they can spend 1 waiting for a bruise pack to be applied to them.

Edit: Because I remembered I hate quote memes. BGO's post is why they are by-and-far the admin that terrifies me the most right now. They'll rule a Warden killing you for being lit on fire, as you're on the ground trying to roll the fire out, as valid... and then ban you for doing 80 damage to a clown that you're dragging to the medbay. Then lecture you about "knowing better".

BGO's bomb example is riddled with fallacies and terrible logic and I doubt anyone wants to read the paragraphs explaining why so I'll leave it there.

Dude you critted a guy that did literally nothing to you just because you could, the policy discussion about succumbing is interesting but bringing up your specific case every post will only do it harm